Sokolsky

People v. Sokolsky

Good Law
115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 794·188 Cal. App. 4th 814·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1645
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 21, 2010B212437California2,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Mark Sokolsky appeals from a jury verdict adjudicating him a sexually violent predator under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq. (Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA)). Appellant argues he is entitled to a hearing on his right to represent himself in propria persona in this court. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of his risk of reoffending, and contends that his involuntary commitment violates his due process rights. Appellant asserts that the Static-99 test employed by the psychological evaluators should not have been admitted without an evidentiary hearing under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] (Kelly). Respondent contends that the two-year commitment imposed was unauthorized under Proposition 83.

In our original opinion in this case, we agreed with respondent that the proper term of commitment for appellant was indeterminate. We modified the term of commitment on that ground. The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter to us with directions to vacate our opinion and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Castillo (2010) 49 Cal.4th 145 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.3d 346 , 230 P.3d 1132…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.